You mean the Greenwald who is employed by the Guardian and who usually cites his sources

And Greenwald, for other reasons in his background, is as flawed and biased as they come.

The evidence speaks to the contrary. I don't want to get in a political debate, but it's pretty obvious what's going on when every mogul owned publication in the country loses it's mind to call Greenwald a terrorist for revealing a spying program targeting all Americans, hidden from all Americans, and lied about by the director of the NSA to Congress. The major media is a tool of the government, not nearly as obvious as China, but still pretty damn obvious. You want to defend that by calling Greenwald "flawed" and "biased", that's fine. I feel that speaks more to a pretty obvious bias towards either controlling information or simply repeating what you've been told to believe.

Oh I see. Because I don't submit to your demand that I listen to the power$ that be, I don't want to have a serious conversation.

It's nice that you were able break a story like that. But a single advertiser versus policy that affects conglomerates and media moguls are not the same thing. I mean...hell, today's reality has PBS not showing documentaries because they make the Koch Brothers look bad. There's a serious lack of any sort of credibility to the media today, even in places where you'd never expect it.

No. You don't want to have a serious conversation because you insist on holding on to your opinion in spite of the fact that people are making arguments based on superior experience because you prefer to believe that a source that does not attribute its sources for news, that for all practical purposes doesn't even physically exist is a superior source.

It is irrelevant if publicly funded PBS doesn't air a documentary. Really, that has nothing to do with the eight newspaper chains that employed me (and I didn't break just one story) never forbidding reporters from pursuing stories that cost those newspapers advertisers or were not politically aligned with the moguls who owned them. And, really, it isn't even relevant if the mainstream media has a credibility problem, although much of that is manufactured by the interests who are threatened by responsible journalism.

People don't go into reporting because they want to toe the company line. You don't win state press club awards by toeing the company or political line. But there are plenty of bloggers who do nothing but toe the company or party line. That is a foundation of blogging. Now it is news because people have come to believe news is what they want it to be.

I'm not going to argue that there aren't problems in the mainstream media. No conscientious reporter or editor would. One of the reasons the mainstream media is such an easy target is that it is so pervasive and universal and are not under common control.

But you insist on continuing to take the leap that because there are problems in the mainstream media, the blogger who doesn't quote a source has to be more reliable. For all you know, he may have been the same blogger who exposed Helen Keller as a Satanist a couple of years ago.

Well, when you've been taught it's the truth because it's the news, that probably plays a lot into it. And when you've been taught the internet is untrustworthy from the same people, it's hard to actually take the time to realize what the truth is.

There's a lot of bad internet, yeah. But MOST of what's major media is now corrupt in some fashion. Don't get your news from them, or at least find another view point from somewhere outside that bubble and make an educated decision on the truth for yourself.

No. You don't want to have a serious conversation because you insist on holding on to your opinion in spite of the fact that people are making arguments based on superior experience because you prefer to believe that a source that does not attribute its sources for news, that for all practical purposes doesn't even physically exist is a superior source.

You're not used to it by now? As soon as one point is pretty much shot down, the landscape changes so that his posts are always "right." You know, it doesn't take away from any credibility one has to admit that some arguments are flawed or just plain incorrect, but it does take away from credibility to persist despite it.

__________________
Ridiculousness across all sports:

(1) "You have no valid opinion because you never played the game."
(2) "Stats are irrelevant. This guy just doesn't know how to win."

Quit trolling. He hasn't touched on a single aspect of my point, and all you're doing is trying to get me mad.

This is hilarious. You basically instigated this entire thing, and now that you've lost the argument(you're the only person that thinks otherwise btw), you want to take your ball and go home. And then you insinuate people are trying to make you mad and/or are trolling, or personally attacking you. *****

__________________

A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives- Jackie Robinson

It's kind of hard to imagine somebody arguing with Tdog about his field of expertise and claiming experience as an important factor when Tdog has been giving eyeball accounts of witnessing Mordecai Three Finger Brown pitching to Ed Walsh in the Aught 6 series for years now.

I feel like it would be like me arguing with Stephen Hawking about physics or something.

__________________
What is Mind? -- Doesn't Matter!
What is Matter? -- Never Mind!
-Homer Simpson

It's kind of hard to imagine somebody arguing with Tdog about his field of expertise and claiming experience as an important factor when Tdog has been giving eyeball accounts of witnessing Mordecai Three Finger Brown pitching to Ed Walsh in the Aught 6 series for years now.

I feel like it would be like me arguing with Stephen Hawking about physics or something.

This is hilarious. You basically instigated this entire thing, and now that you've lost the argument(you're the only person that thinks otherwise btw), you want to take your ball and go home. And then you insinuate people are trying to make you mad and/or are trolling, or personally attacking you. *****

It's kind of hard to imagine somebody arguing with Tdog about his field of expertise and claiming experience as an important factor when Tdog has been giving eyeball accounts of witnessing Mordecai Three Finger Brown pitching to Ed Walsh in the Aught 6 series for years now.

I feel like it would be like me arguing with Stephen Hawking about physics or something.

That's exactly why he's the worst possible person to debate this. He's from a different time, the media has not only evolved, it creates the news. What's news, and how to view it.